IamPlato:
the point is that, we choose to create a purpose for ourselves

I think all systems have their purposes whether we are beneficiaries or not of the system. Do you agree with this?

Then, I think a way of looking at it purely from intellectual point of view is to ask the question:

1. Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?
2. Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

Three questions sir!

Cc: LordReed

JackBizzle:





My point exactly-

Then why persistent with labeling me a nihilist when I am clearly not one.

LordReed:


Then why persistent with labeling me a nihilist when I am clearly not one.

Reread the comment again.

LordReed:


Then why persistent with labeling me a nihilist when I am clearly not one.

But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

If all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die. Is there really a purpose for human existence.

If we are just star dust, could there be a purpose to us?

LordReed:


This is not from Jon's response. Read Jon's response in the linked page then we can discuss.

EDITED

You gave the wrong link and I just took a quote from there. Budaatum put the right link and I have read it now.

Why not posit something yourself? Why must I respond to Sochaux? Or even at least, take a quote from him and explain it yourself? Intellectually lazy.


Nevertheless, Sochaux engaged in using strawmen. He debated against 5 responses that he assumed nihilists would give if questioned.

Another response on that same quora link stated that one should get a meaning of nihilism or pick the type of nihilism before discussing nihilism.


Guy, I can't respond to everything Sochaux said because many are strawmen, if you are really interested in discussion, pick one thing and lets talk

HellVictorinho:


Survival has no purpose.

I agree with you!
Survival for what purpose?

Unfortunately too, this a very narrow view of purpose!

Can a computer program inherently know it's purpose?

Only a human can say affirmatively that a computer program has a purpose.

Would it be true then if a human conclude that he has no purpose in life?

Good morning Sir. Hope you slept well.

shadeyinka:

Could it be that wise humans are too proud to admit that they are finite and limited in their capacity to know all things. For as you rightly said: "a system itself implies a purpose"

I am struggling to comprehend the above!

First, there is no "all things to know" for humans to know because there is always going to be an unknown tomorrow..Second, humans do not have finite ability to learn unless they are lazy.

shadeyinka:
Unfortunately, these two propositions

1. Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?

This is very bad English! You call it a system, so it must operate, as in, do something, and that something it does is its purpose.

shadeyinka:
Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

Not necessarily. The system may operate without benefit accruing to any particular beneficiary even though there may be a benefit.

The earth does not go around the sun for your benefit though you may derive a benefit from the earth going around the sun.

I do not think you will agree with this however.

shadeyinka:
can only lead to one conclusion: an ultimate beneficiary of the overall system. For it is impossible to have an infinite regression of cause and effect!

And this here is the reason you will disagree.

It is not true that "it is impossible to have an infinite regression of cause and effect". And even if it is you have not gone far back enough to know, first, when to stop regressing, and second, the overall system.

This is perhaps the point where you apply wisdom and not be too proud to admit that while you definitely have an infinite capacity to learn a lot you have hardly begun learning so should not be inserting a belief as if it were knowledge.

shadeyinka:
For me, logically, an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE must somehow exist.

For you perhaps, but I see no reason to assume like you do that there was an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, nor can I claim creating crap in my head is logical. Perhaps its because I am wise enough to accept that I do not know, which is far more logical than filling the gaps in my knowledge with a belief!

shadeyinka:
Beyond this, I believe the Intellectual capacity of humans even though great cannot attain.

So you insert UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE because you believe you do not have the Intellectual capacity to learn so you may know?

Well, as long as you do not require that buda believe as you do, I will defer.

shadeyinka:
Note: just as we have proved that speeds exceeding the speed of light is impossible.

Actually, we have proven no such thing and much work is ongoing to test it.

shadeyinka:
Let's not reopen this

Sorry, but I am afraid we will keep returning to this because it is a fallacy of you disbelieving what you see with your own eyes and making up crap to justify what you want to believe. Just read what you have written in this post of your's that I am responding to to see how many times you've tried pulling the same crap on me!

If you can refuse to see the text in a book that is in front of your eyes and distort what you read with a belief, my confidence in your ability to comprehend the unseeable abstract like we discuss here will be tiny. At least I must bear that inability in mind because it adversely influences your reasoning.

shadeyinka:
Do you think an infinite regression of Cause and Effect is logically possible ( with respect to existence)?

Yes, an infinite regression is possible with respect to existence, but even if not, the universe is very very old and we have not regressed enough to check so we can say we know either way.

shadeyinka:
Just as we have logically and intellectually defined the term INFINITY, why not intellectually and logically define "the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE"!

You can not intellectually and logically define "the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" Shade. You merely adopted it as a belief! You are very welcome to try though.

shadeyinka:
It would be an impossibility to find the number called infinite however long we search and wait.

Talk about stating the obvious. Lol. No, you can not get to the end of 1, 2, 3, because you can always add another one. In Maths its called an Infinite Series. And yes, it does exist.

shadeyinka:
If we can logically and intellectually wrap our heads around this, the next intelligent proper question should be:

If the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE exist, would (It/He) be a THING or a BEING?

If you can make up crap in your head you mean, like if I can place a billion pounds in your bank account before noon will you be a millionaire?

Sorry but my head refuses the creation of crap in it because there is nothing logical nor intelligent in doing so.

Or as Christ will say, [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A25-34&version=KJV]Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof[/url].

Click on it for the full text please.

IamPlato:
imagine you were the first man with the first woman and the question "why are you here" drops in your head, what will be your answer?

will you say you are here to survive? bro surviving is not a purpose, a purpose is meant to be significant or remarkable or a land mark.

if surviving is a purpose then the purpose is never achieved because no man survives, every one dies.


take the first man and first woman for example, their purpose is to reproduce and explore and educate the children created from reproduction, that is what you call a purpose.

they can choose to stay without doing all these and stay without giving a meaning to their existence.

Purpose doesn’t have to be significant. A cotton bud for instance is insignificant and so is its purpose.

budaatum:
Good morning Sir. Hope you slept well.

Oh, thanks my dear Buda. Well refreshed. I believe you slept well too.

budaatum:

I am struggling to comprehend the above!

First, there is no "all things to know" for humans to know because there is always going to be an unknown tomorrow..Second, humans do not have finite ability to learn unless they are lazy.

I meant, if we agree that any system must have a purpose and several systems exist in the universe. Then a necessary conclusion should be that the universe has a purpose. If the universe has a purpose (even if we cannot comprehend it), there must be a beneficiary to such system.

It would be fallacy to conclude that we don't know if a beneficiary of the system exist. Hence I conclude that:

Could it be that wise humans are too proud to admit that they are finite and limited in their capacity to know all things.

That is: can we admit that the Creator exist BUT we can't measure HIM (the Creator) on our laboratory scale

budaatum:

This is very bad English! You call it a system, so it must operate, as in, do something, and that something it does is its purpose.

Sorry for the tutology! It was to make the statement unambiguous.

But at least, the answer seem clear:
1. Can a system [s]which operates in a self fulfilling cycle[/s] be purposeless?

Answer: No!

budaatum:

Not necessarily. The system may operate without benefit accruing to any particular beneficiary even though there may be a benefit.

The earth does not go around the sun for your benefit though you may derive a benefit from the earth going around the sun.

I do not think you will agree with this however.


And this here is the reason you will disagree.

Aren't you contradicting yourself?

The statement was:

Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

If a system must necessarily have a purpose, such purpose must be to the advantage, good or necessity of/for another entity or system.

Such benefits doesn't necessarily have to accrue to man.

Electrons for example have the purpose of keeping an atom neutrally charchged and useful for chemical reactions of the atom. Thus we can say the nucleus of the atom "benefit" from the presence of electrons round it. But this doesn't have a direct benefit to humans.

budaatum:

It is not true that "it is impossible to have an infinite regression of cause and effect". And even if it is you have not gone far back enough to know, first, when to stop regressing, and second, the overall system.

This is perhaps the point where you apply wisdom and not be too proud to admit that while you definitely have an infinite capacity to learn a lot you have hardly begun learning so should not be inserting a belief as if it were knowledge.

All we need is just one physical example of an infinite regression of cause and effect.

If there exist no iota of example, then taking a position that an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible is a RECKLESS Belief!

budaatum:

For you perhaps, but I see no reason to assume like you do that there was an UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, nor can I claim creating crap in my head is logical. Perhaps its because I am wise enough to accept that I do not know, which is far more logical than filling the gaps in my knowledge with a belief!

So you insert UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE because you believe you do not have the Intellectual capacity to learn so you may know?

Well, as long as you do not require that buda believe as you do, I will defer.

If we can't find a single example were an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible, then is it not reasonable to conclude (in the realm of the physical ) that there must exist a first cause!

Note:
Change is Caused!
But a Cause itself is a kind of Change!

The Universe is still changing and scientifically in future, it will attain equilibrium where no change is possible again.

If the universe has an end, it must have a beginning. If it has a beginning, it must be caused for change to take place. This is possible is there exist a Primordial Cause!

It's that simple Sir!

budaatum:

Actually, we have proven no such thing and much work is ongoing to test it.

Sorry, but I am afraid we will keep returning to this because it is a fallacy of you disbelieving what you see with your own eyes and making up crap to justify what you want to believe. Just read what you have written in this post of your's that I am responding to to see how many times you've tried pulling the same crap on me!

If you can refuse to see the text in a book that is in front of your eyes and distort what you read with a belief, my confidence in your ability to comprehend the unseeable abstract like we discuss here will be tiny. At least I must bear that inability in mind because it adversely influences your reasoning.

Yes, an infinite regression is possible with respect to existence, but even if not, the universe is very very old and we have not regressed enough to check so we can say we know either way.

You can not intellectually and logically define "the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" Shade. You merely adopted it as a belief! You are very welcome to try though.


Talk about stating the obvious. Lol. No, you can not get to the end of 1, 2, 3, because you can always add another one. In Maths its called an Infinite Series. And yes, it does exist.

If you can make up crap in your head you mean, like if I can place a billion pounds in your bank account before noon will you be a millionaire?

Sorry but my head refuses the creation of crap in it because there is nothing logical nor intelligent in doing so.

Or as Christ will say, [url=https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A25-34&version=KJV]Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof[/url].

Click on it for the full text please.

The UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE is very much like INFINITY. There is no specific number called infinity because you can always add 1 to such number. But Intellectually, we use infinity in our mathematical computations because even though it is no fixed number, it is useful in solving maths problem.

It would be a fallacy for a mathematician to dismiss infinity from mathematics just because it is not a fixed number!

LordReed:


Purpose doesn’t have to be significant. A cotton bud for instance is insignificant and so is its purpose.

we are talking about humans not other stuff. But who told you a cotton bud is not significant? Have you heard of the butterfly effect

shadeyinka:

I think all systems have their purposes whether we are beneficiaries or not of the system. Do you agree with this?

Then, I think a way of looking at it purely from intellectual point of view is to ask the question:

1. Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?
2. Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

Three questions sir!

Cc: LordReed

the purpose I am referring to is very specific to man not other things in nature like animals and planets... All those were naturally created with an automatic purpose they have no freewill

shadeyinka:

I agree with you!
Survival for what purpose?

Unfortunately too, this a very narrow view of purpose!

Can a computer program inherently know it's purpose?

Only a human can say affirmatively that a computer program has a purpose.

Would it be true then if a human conclude that he has no purpose in life?

Stop comparing humans to computers!

JackBizzle:



You gave the wrong link and I just took a quote from there. Budaatum put the right link and I have read it now.

Why not posit something yourself? Why must I respond to Sochaux? Or even at least, take a quote from him and explain it yourself? Intellectually lazy.


Nevertheless, Sochaux engaged in using strawmen. He debated against 5 responses that he assumed nihilists would give if questioned.

Another response on that same quora link stated that one should get a meaning of nihilism or pick the type of nihilism before discussing nihilism.


Guy, I can't respond to everything Sochaux said because many are strawmen, if you are really interested in discussion, pick one thing and lets talk

I didn't ask you to respond to Sochaux, I said we should discuss after you've read his response. I did so because he more eloquently speaks about some of what I tried to say and more than adequately deconstructs some of the flaws of the nihilistic position.

The way he deconstructed the nihilistic position that value is a meaningless thing is one of the ways Sochaux echoes my thoughts. That somethings ends does not make it valueless.

Another thing I would like to add is purpose, meaning and value are all concepts that can only be held in conscious minds. The universe is not conscious so to expect it to have these things is absurd, this however doesn't mean these concepts cannot be had or held.

HellVictorinho:

Stop comparing humans to computers!

There is a lot of similarity sir. An advanced artificial intelligence programming on a fleshy body!

shadeyinka:

But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

If all we do is be born, eat, grow, reproduce and die. Is there really a purpose for human existence.

If we are just star dust, could there be a purpose to us?

Not if you want to enjoy your life and have less mental anguish.

Eat, grow, reproduce are all purposes so you may be contradicting yourself.

budaatum:

I am not a believer, Plato. I do not create crap inside my head and claim it is knowledge despite it being utter ignorance. To believe is to claim the little one thinks one knows is all there is to know. Once one believes, one stops learning. You may read Shade and I tackling it here.

I mean, just look at the question you asked. You imply a creator, then you ask who. Who's to say humans were created? How do you know they did not arrive on earth from the planet zoghidecton or somewhere closer like Mars?

I am an evolutionist however. I understand that humans evolved from humanoids that preceeded them as did they and so on to a single cell. But evolution starts after life occured and does not specifically state how life actually began, so the best you'd get from me is, buda does not have a clue how life began billions and billions of years ago.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/13152958_notable02547_jpeg2a552f1e40eee3947fd578e6e174c42e

if you are an evolutionist then you believe that something creates man... There is a starting point, in your own belief where is the starting point for man

shadeyinka:

There is a lot of similarity sir. An advanced artificial intelligence programming on a fleshy body!

One is lifeless while the other is not!

JackBizzle:


Reread the comment again.

I did, that's why I can't figure out why you think I must wear the nihilist label. I don't support the nihilistic position of the negation of mean, purpose and value, the lack of inherence not withstanding.

IamPlato:
if you are an evolutionist then you believe that something creates man... There is a starting point, in your own belief where is the starting point for man

That is not the position of evolution. Evolution says nothing about creation.

shadeyinka:

I think all systems have their purposes whether we are beneficiaries or not of the system. Do you agree with this?

Then, I think a way of looking at it purely from intellectual point of view is to ask the question:

1. Can a system which operates in a self fulfilling cycle be purposeless?
2. Can we agree that for there to be a purpose of a system, there must be a beneficiary!

Three questions sir!

Cc: LordReed

1. Purpose is a concept held in conscious minds. It describes something that is happening. The thing it is describing exists whether or not there is someone there to describe it.

2. See 1 above. As budaatum alluded to before a tree falling in the forest makes noise whether or not someone is there to hear it.

IamPlato:
we are talking about humans not other stuff. But who told you a cotton bud is not significant? Have you heard of the butterfly effect

Then accordingly nothing is insignicant therefore the label significant is unnecessary.

budaatum:


It is you who brought coexistence here, not me, so I do not know why you are arguing with yourself.

Indeed you do not need to coexist. There are people who live on islands all by themself with no one near them to exist with. My simple point is that to exist, as in, to continue in a state of survival, is a purpose that you must do something in order to achieve. If you do nothing, unless others do something on your behalf, you will fail to achieve your purpose of existence.

Even on an island all by yourself, the fish will not jump out of the ocean and into your pot that sits on your fire that ignited itself and into your belly to feed you. You must, I believe, get off your ass or starve.

You are just another group of indivisible ageless objects that form the pattern called budaatum for no reason.

LordReed:


Not if you want to enjoy your life and have less mental anguish.

Eat, grow, reproduce are all purposes so you may be contradicting yourself.

The examples of Eating, growing, reproduction are NOT purposes. The purpose of a diesel generator is not to drink engine oil and consume fuel. The purpose is to generate electricity!

Purpose and benefits cannot be disconnected from one another.

I asked,
But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

budaatum:


But it is a purpose. You can very well exist as an individual, but those who chose to coexist have consciously chosen coexistence as one of their purposes.

This is very obvious by the mere fact that it, in your words, involves a "consciousness or awareness" (implying it is not accidental!), and the "performance of several activities" which do not "just happen" because you must voluntarily choose to make them happen!

Basically, your supper does not go to the shop to buy the food and cook it for you so it can accidentally manifest as food in your mouth, Hell!

There is no reason why there is a display of consciousness or awareness.

shadeyinka:

The examples of Eating, growing, reproduction are NOT purposes. The purpose of a diesel generator is not to drink engine oil and consume fuel. The purpose is to generate electricity!

Purpose and benefits cannot be disconnected from one another.

I asked,
But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

Atheism is different from nihilism.
Atheism shouldn't gravitate towards anything.

LordReed:


I didn't ask you to respond to Sochaux, I said we should discuss after you've read his response. I did so because he more eloquently speaks about some of what I tried to say and more than adequately deconstructs some of the flaws of the nihilistic position.

The way he deconstructed the nihilistic position that value is a meaningless thing is one of the ways Sochaux echoes my thoughts. That somethings ends does not make it valueless.

Another thing I would like to add is purpose, meaning and value are all concepts that can only be held in conscious minds. The universe is not conscious so to expect it to have these things is absurd, this however doesn't mean these concepts cannot be had or held.

Nice.

Here are some of my counter points to you and sochaux.


1. One needs to define nihilism and the type of nihilism to be addressed before discussing nihilism.

2. Cosmic nihilism is what I am talking about and I like the definition given in one of your links

that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.

3. Regarding point number 2, I separate the cosmic level from the individual level. There is meaning in the individual level because we as humans have reasoning and can create our own meaning.

4 Just like the cosmic level, the quantum level has no meaning. At the quantum level, your fingers can't really touch anything. Things pop in and out of existence. A microuniverse that is indifferent and uncaring to everything we think we know.

In summary, we both agree about the individual being able to create meaning. I am not a moral nihilist or epistemological or existential nihilist.

Where we disagree is in the universal level.

shadeyinka:

The examples of Eating, growing, reproduction are NOT purposes. The purpose of a diesel generator is not to drink engine oil and consume fuel. The purpose is to generate electricity!

Purpose and benefits cannot be disconnected from one another.

I asked,
But shouldn't atheism necessarily gravitate towards nihilism?

They are purposes even though they are limited in scope. Once you have eaten and are satisfied you have fulfilled that purpose until you need to eat again.

Asked and answered.

JackBizzle:



Nice.

Here are some of my counter points to you and sochaux.


1. One needs to define nihilism and the type of nihilism to be addressed before discussing nihilism.

2. Cosmic nihilism is what I am talking about and I like the definition given in one of your links

that there is no benevolent God watching over humanity, and that, in the vast scheme of the cosmos, stretching out to infinity, humanity and the individual are less than insignificant; indeed, nearly unnoticeable and invisible.

3. Regarding point number 2, I separate the cosmic level from the individual level. There is meaning in the individual level because we as humans have reasoning and can create our own meaning.

4 Just like the cosmic level, the quantum level has no meaning. At the quantum level, your fingers can't really touch anything. Things pop in and out of existence. A microuniverse that is indifferent and uncaring to everything we think we know.

In summary, we both agree about the individual being able to create meaning. I am not a moral nihilist or epistemological or existential nihilist.

Where we disagree is in the universal level.

And l echo Sochaux in saying it doesn't matter. As long as you agree that the individual can create meaning then the cosmic level is subsumed in the individual purpose. The cosmic level doesn't and can't give meaning so there no point in looking out there for it.

LordReed:


1. Purpose is a concept held in conscious minds. It describes something that is happening. The thing it is describing exists whether or not there is someone there to describe it.

2. See 1 above. As budaatum alluded to before a tree falling in the forest makes noise whether or not someone is there to hear it.

It is impossible for a Tree to know it's purpose because it doesn't benefit directly from its own existence. But without the Tree, carbon cycle, oxygen cycle, food chain ceases to exist. On the earth, the trees purpose is to convert the solar radiation to food and oxygen for life to exist.

A crankshaft has a purpose within a crankcase of an engine. It's purpose is to translate the linear motion of the piston into rotational motion.

Purpose is thus a fallacy without at least one beneficiary of the system!

shadeyinka:

It is impossible for a Tree to know it's purpose because it doesn't benefit directly from its own existence. But without the Tree, carbon cycle, oxygen cycle, food chain ceases to exist. On the earth, the trees purpose is to convert the solar radiation to food and oxygen for life to exist.

A crankshaft has a purpose within a crankcase of an engine. It's purpose is to translate the linear motion of the piston into rotational motion.

Purpose is thus a fallacy without at least one beneficiary of the system!

If you are not there to see the crankshaft does it still have purpose?

LordReed:


And l echo Sochaux in saying it doesn't matter. As long as you agree that the individual can create meaning then the cosmic level is subsumed in the individual purpose. The cosmic level doesn't and can't give meaning so there no point in looking out there for it.

Okay.....no problem then. That is satisfactory

HellVictorinho:

One is lifeless while the other is not!

It doesn't make a difference!

We have dumb robots and we have robbots with artificial intelligence like Lucy!

A human being is like the most advanced robot with artificial intelligence